If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.

The fact that he was asked not to attend the game - that speaks volumes to me. That begs the question - why did Jim tell JT not to attend the game. It isn't like it is a road game. Logic would tell us, he probably had some type of disagreement with JT, and thought it was better that he stay away for a day, clear his head.

Peck, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If he got paid for the game then he was not suspended, although I siuppose a team could and has suspended a player with pay - I think they did that with Artest in '03.

I don't understand why a number of you are using this against O'Brien. Regardless of anything, he disciplined Tinsley - isn't that what everyone has wanted for years. And now that we have a coach willing to discipline a player, everyone is complaining about the exact laguage used. I really don't understand it. Look at the big picture.

Comment

How about Tinsley....afterall if he hadn't acted up, this would be a non-issue.

That's true, but it is Tinsley we're talking about!

I've had the thought several years in a row now that he does something every year at this time to hurt his trade value so the Pacers can't trade him. Then again I think . . . well I was reading Chad Ford's chat this morning on ESPN, and the following was posted.

----------Kenny (Indiana): What is Larry Bird going to do in Indiana? or do we still have to live w/ Dunleavy and Granger in the starting lineup together in which 1 will be playing out of positin at SG.

Chad Ford: They're in limbo. They're a solid team, but aren't going to scare anyone on any given night. They're defense has been awful. To me the Pacers have always hinged on Tinsley. When he's healthy and in the zone, they are tough to beat. When he's injured (which seems to be all the time) or out of the zone (which also happens on a regular basis) they tank. I've felt for the longest time ... he's the guy you've got to replace. You can't have such inconsistency from your floor leader.
----------

I agree! I don't think we will go anywhere until we get rid of Tins. I think he and his life style are a real problem. It took the Blazers years to shed the JailBlazers nickname, because there was always some rotten apples left.

Finally they decided to just go after good character guys and look what's happened! That's what I want the Pacers to do!

I've had the thought several years in a row now that he does something every year at this time to hurt his trade value so the Pacers can't trade him. Then again I think . . . well I was reading Chad Ford's chat this morning on ESPN, and the following was posted.

----------Kenny (Indiana): What is Larry Bird going to do in Indiana? or do we still have to live w/ Dunleavy and Granger in the starting lineup together in which 1 will be playing out of positin at SG.

Chad Ford: They're in limbo. They're a solid team, but aren't going to scare anyone on any given night. They're defense has been awful. To me the Pacers have always hinged on Tinsley. When he's healthy and in the zone, they are tough to beat. When he's injured (which seems to be all the time) or out of the zone (which also happens on a regular basis) they tank. I've felt for the longest time ... he's the guy you've got to replace. You can't have such inconsistency from your floor leader.
----------

I agree! I don't think we will go anywhere until we get rid of Tins. I think he and his life style are a real problem. It took the Blazers years to shed the JailBlazers nickname, because there was always some rotten apples left.

Finally they decided to just go after good character guys and look what's happened! That's what I want the Pacers to do!

Comment

Portland . . . decided to just go after good character guys and look what's happened! That's what I want the Pacers to do!

I'm glad to see this statement. Now, Will, the question is who are the good character guys, and who needs to go. I'm just trying to encourage your point. I agree that this needs to happen. And it means putting character over talent and turning a deaf ear to the critics.

Who, then, are the people who need to go because of character.

Tinsley? Absolutely. He's exhibit A
Harrison? Bye, bye, Hulk.

Now it gets tougher.

Daniels? He's facing charges after 8 Seconds (Is that reason enough?)
O'Neal? He was charged for the brawl (Is that reason enough?)
Williams? Driving charges and drugs last Fall (Is that reason enough?)

Any more?

Rush? Bernie Bickerstaff dumped him, but I think that issue is in the past.
Foster? Uttered "That's good-*** defense" during a game. think of the children. (I'm kidding.)

And I won't be here to see the dayIt all dries up and blows awayI'd hang around just to seeBut they never had much use for meIn Levelland. (James McMurtry)

Comment

Who do you think told Jackson? Someone that knows more than anyone on here, that's for sure, and probably Tinsley.

Obviously they had some issue at the film session and that turned into a pretty standard "suspended with pay" situation. I agree with Peck that JOB tried to downplay it just like Rick used to do, if anything it's for the player's benefit (their rep/image).

It came out and JOB/TPTB are trying to spin out of an awkward situation.

And blaming Jackson is just naive (or more likely biased). When he said this how in the world does he know what the official post-game explanation from TPTB is? For all he knows at that point is that this has happened and has been publically addressed in the pre-game presser.

You guys act like he got up the next day, read the paper and said "I'm not going to let them get away with this, my boy was unfairly suspended." That's not what happened. He answered a question as though the suspension was already a known issue.

If that's the case then O'B isn't lying about the result.

Technically, but come on, we're adults here. And regardless there is "asked to stay home" due to injury and due to disagreement. He's still denying the disagreement and if that's true then he is lying/spinning.

Comment

And blaming Jackson is just naive (or more likely biased). When he said this how in the world does he know what the official post-game explanation from TPTB is? For all he knows at that point is that this has happened and has been publically addressed in the pre-game presser.

Online sites were already saying Tins was out because of his knee. If I knew it hours before the game, so did Jackson.

Comment

"Consider the source." All that implies is that Jackson is not a reliable or authoritative source for information about the Pacers.

But again were not kids, we all know that is a common phrase with a definite implication behind it. It's not as simple as "they don't know our info", it carries the weight of the person being undependable due to character issues.

You use it to attack the person bringing the information to light as a means of defense for yourself.

"Jose Conseco said you did steriods with him McGwire."
"Yeah, but consider the source."

That doesn't mean "how would he know", that means "he's the type to make crap up for reasons of attention/stirring trouble".

And JOB didn't even coach Jackson, so consider HIS source on Jackson as a person.

They are throwing Jack under the bus because they know you guys will bite on it due to the outrageous dislike of him. But the story that came out cited MULTIPLE sources, not just Jackson, and again Jack didn't present it in a stirring the pot forum. Tinsley wasn't there, he mentioned it and the reason he thought everyone knew at that point. Why wouldn't they know if it was presented to him as common knowledge? You assume he spoke with someone that knew, maybe Tins, and that discussion probably was more like "he told him/me to sit out a game", "he/I got suspended for tonight, it was BS", etc without some follow-up of "but the official story is that he's/I'm just injured so keep it cool tonight if anyone asks".

Comment

Online sites were already saying Tins was out because of his knee. If I knew it hours before the game, so did Jackson.

See I disagree with this because he isn't living the schedule we are. Is Jack surfing the net for NBA news 3 hours before a game? I'm not saying he couldn't be, but at some point aren't you eating, getting ready for the game, etc. It's not like any of these players are just surfing the net right up until game time.

How Jackson presented it was off the cuff and casual. Maybe he was sticking up for Tinsley, but if that's the case then considering the source it makes what he said effectively the truth, barring spins on technicality.

Comment

See I disagree with this because he isn't living the schedule we are. Is Jack surfing the net for NBA news 3 hours before a game? I'm not saying he couldn't be, but at some point aren't you eating, getting ready for the game, etc. It's not like any of these players are just surfing the net right up until game time.

How Jackson presented it was off the cuff and casual. Maybe he was sticking up for Tinsley, but if that's the case then considering the source it makes what he said effectively the truth, barring spins on technicality.

I didn't make my point clear. If online sites knew Tins was out, then the Warriors knew he was out. Thus Jack as a member of the Warriors would know he was out, and why.

I still think everyone is making a big deal out of nothing, and I don't hold with lying. (as the Pacers have been accused of doing)

Comment

I think someone should write a dissertation comparing and contrasting the definitions of suspension versus deactivation, and how these distinctions are interpretted by the common fan in Indiana. It really is a fascinating subject.

Comment

First of all there is no big scandal, just a very poor lack of judgement and character IMO.

I was totally with Uncle Buck at the beginning of yesterday when we first started hearing this.

Not telling everyone was no big deal to me. I completley understood why they would want to keep private and frankly I didn't care.

However once the story started to be told, the constant denials and then the changing of the story made me start to question the entire thing. Then by the time I listened to the coach's radio show and then read this article I was in the Shade & Hicks camp of "why are you lying to us".

Suspended, de-activated, told not to come, whatever. As Seth has already appropriatley said were all adults here so come on. This is one of those statement where we have to determine what the word "Is" is.

And no I'm sorry but I will agree to adamantly disagree with you over his slap at Jackson.

How about this.

Putnam say's "O'Brien did not call Jackson a liar, or even imply that he is a liar."

Peck's retort to this is: "consider the source".

Does that mean that all I am saying about you is that you are just not a reliable source when it comes to information regarding the team? Or am I saying that what you have to say is not worth paying attention to because you either are a liar or spreader of unintential false truths?

Personally I'd think it was the latter and not the former.

His retort to talking about the suspension was to call out a player on another team by name and IMO degrading him.

But if you want to disagree that is your poragative.

Now to Will.

I know you want your news filtered through the cloak of Pacers positive spin, however I hate to break this to you.

The first internet site to even bring this up was....

pacers.com

Now you can say, and I would agree, that he might have known that Wells was going to run with it. But still he didn't have to cover it at all.

Also, this is not to Will, one other problem here IMO.

We are now saying de-activated. At first it was he couldn't play because he was injured. Now it is he is de-activated because the coach can.

Right there is a change of story and frankly would have been an easy out for O'Brien right there.

All he would have had to say was that he de-activated him and gave him permission to miss the game and that this was an all internal matter & then refuse to comment beyond that.

But the fact that he had to go so far above and beyond to try and make Well's and Jackson out to be liars is my problem.

Well that and how he threw away the Pheonix game.

Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13